Employer Denied Permission to Appeal Just Cause Decision

Citation: X v Canada Employment Insurance Commission , 2026  SST  53 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Added Party: [NAME]. Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 27, 2025 (GE-25-2852) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 26, 2026 File number: AD-25-825 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis I am not giving the Employer permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. X’s appeal will not proceed. Overview [ 2 ] X. is the Appellant (the Employer) in this case. [ 3 ] The Canada Employment Insurance Commission (Commission) decided [NAME]. (the Claimant) was entitled to get benefits because she had proven she had just cause for voluntarily leaving her employment. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The General Division found in the Claimant’s favour. It found she had voluntarily left her job and had just cause as there was no reasonable alternative to leaving. Footnote 2 Because of that, it said she wasn’t disqualified from getting Employment Insurance benefits. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] The Employer is now asking for permission to appeal and argues that the General Division made important factual errors. Footnote 4 [ 6 ] I am denying permission to appeal because the Employer’s arguments don’t show that they have an arguable case upon which the appeal might succeed. So, I can’t give them permission to appeal. Footnote 5 Issue [ 7 ] Is there an arguable case that the General Division based its decision on any important errors of fact when it concluded that the Claimant had just cause to voluntarily leave her job? Analysis [ 8 ] The law says that I can consider four types of errors, and they include, a failure to follow a fair process, jurisdictional, legal, and important factual errors. Footnote 6 These errors are based on the grounds of appeal. [ 9 ] I can only give the Claimant permission to appeal if there’s an “arguable case” that the General Division made a reviewable error that gives his appeal a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 7 [ 10 ] The Employer set out their reasons for appealing and I have considered them. Footnote 8 I’ve also reviewed the General Division decision and the file record. I am not giving the Employer permission to appeal The Employer’s arguments to the Appeal Division [ 11 ] The Employer argues that the General Division made important factual errors because the initial decision was made in their favour, based on the same evidence. They simply don’t understand why the decision was overturned. [ 12 ] The Employer acknowledged that the appeal was previously before the Appeal Division and returned to the General Division for reconsideration so that the Claimant could participate with the assistance of an interpreter. [ 13 ] The Employer restates that the harassment allegations are false, fabricated and irrelevant to the decision. Their communications with the Claimant were neither threatening nor harassing. They were simply checking-in while she was off from work. They restate that she left her job due to physical injury, physical illness and mental health concerns. And they are asking the Appeal Division to review this case and uphold the original ruling in their favour. There was some procedural history with this file [ 14 ] This file was first heard by the General Division, and it issued a decision on July 4, 2025. It found in the Employer’s favour. Footnote 9 However, that decision was appealed to the Appeal Division by the Claimant. [ 15 ] The Appeal Division held a hearing and then issued its decision on October 7, 2025. Footnote 10 It determined that the General Division had failed to follow a fair process because the lack of interpretation services affected the Claimant’s ability to understand and fully participate in the proceedings and give evidence. Because of that, the file was returned to the General Division for reconsideration. Footnote 11 [ 16 ] The General Division heard the matter and issued its decision on November 26, 2025, now finding in the Claimant’s favour. Footnote 12 The Employer has now appealed to the Appeal Division (this is the decision currently under appeal). There is no arguable case that the General Division made any important factual errors when it decided the voluntary leave issue [ 17 ] A factual error happens when the General Division has “based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.” Footnote 13 [ 18 ] The  EI  Act says that a person has just cause for voluntarily leaving their job if, having regard to all the circumstances, they had no reasonable alternative to quitting. Footnote 14 The law provides a list of relevant circumstances, including harassment. Footnote 15 [ 19 ] The General Division decided that the Claimant voluntarily left her job on July 30, 2024. Footnote 16 It found that two circumstances existed when she quit, namely that there was a decline in her physical and mental health since April 2024 and the employer harassed her in July  2024. Footnote 17 [ 20 ] It also considered whether the Claimant was required to work excessive overtime work or if there was a refusal to pay for overtime work. Footnote 18 It concluded that the evidence (pay stubs and compass card records) didn’t show that she was required to work excessive overtime or wasn’t paid for overtime work. [ 21 ] The General Division then assessed whether the Claimant had just cause to leave her job. It explained that the Claimant was new to Canada and not familiar with the resources available to her. It noted that she was reliant on the Employer for housing and employment—the same employer that it found had harassed her during her medical leave. It accepted that her mental health was declining and that she was advised by her doctor to quit her job. It found that she got assistance from a migrant workers agency. [ 22 ] It concluded that she had just cause as there was no reasonable alternative but to leave her job when she did. Footnote 19 [ 23 ] The Employer disagrees with the General Division’s decision and outcome, but that isn’t a reviewable error. An appeal to the Appeal Division isn’t a new hearing in order to get a different or more favourable outcome. The Appeal Division has a limited role. So, I can’t intervene in order to reweigh the evidence about the application of settled legal principles to the facts of the case. Footnote 20 [ 24 ] And it’s important to know that the General Division wasn’t bound by any previous findings of fact or decisions made, but rather it had to assess the evidence and make its own decision. [ 25 ] Finally, the General Division is the trier of fact and was entitled to weigh the evidence. It explained with detailed reasons why it made the decision it did. [ 26 ] I see no arguable case that the General Division based its decision on any important errors of fact. Footnote 21 Its key findings about the voluntary leave issue are consistent with the evidence before it. I didn’t find any relevant evidence that the General Division might have ignored or misinterpreted. There are no other reasons for giving the Employer permission to appeal. Footnote 22 Conclusion [ 27 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. It has no reasonable chance of success. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Commission’s initial and reconsideration decision at pages GD3-39 to GD3-40 and GD3-103 to GD3-104. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See General Division decision dated November 26, 2025, at pages ADN1A-1 to ADN1A-12. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See sections 29(c) and 30(1) of the Employment Insurance Act ( EI Act). Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See Application to the Appeal Division at pages ADN1-1 to ADN1-11. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See section 58(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD Act). Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See section 58(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC  11 at paragraph 12 and sections 56(1) and 58(2) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See pages ADN1-1 to ADN1-11. I also wrote to the Employer to ask them for additional information about their appeal, since they had used the incorrect forms to apply to the Appeal Division. The employer responded by completing the correct forms and identifying the grounds of appeal and reasons at pages and ADN1B-1 to ADN1B-10. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See X v Canada Employment Insurance Commission and TW , 2025  SST  1026. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See T W V Canada Employment Insurance Commission and X , 2025  SST  1025. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 See section 59(1) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 See pages ADN1A-1 to ADN1A-12. Return to footnote 12 Footnote 13 See section 58(1)(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 13 Footnote 14 See section 29(c) of the  EI  Act. Return to footnote 14 Footnote 15 Harassment is one of the listed circumstances in section 29(c)(i) of the  EI  Act. Return to footnote 15 Footnote 16 See paragraphs 14–15 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 16 Footnote 17 See paragraphs 38 and 51 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 17 Footnote 18 This is a circumstance set out in section 29(c)(viii) of the EI Act. Return to footnote 18 Footnote 19 See paragraphs 53–58 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 19 Footnote 20 [NAME]  v   Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  118. Return to footnote 20 Footnote 21 See section 58(1)(c) of the  DESD  Act. Return to footnote 21 Footnote 22 The Federal Court has suggested such a review in decisions like  [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2016  FC  874 and  [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General),  2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 22